 |
| Marvin Zuker |
Doxxing can become harassment online or live stalking, SWATing or identity theft. Students, and parents, must not post teacher and classmate pictures and information without consent. The availability of personal information can easily undermine teachers in class discipline or engagement with families.
You are a public figure when you’re a teacher. You might not feel like it, you’re not running for office, but you are a public figure. So just try and be thoughtful of what the materials you as a teacher are putting there publicly. Ask yourself, “If a group of parents got a hold of this, what might they do with it?”
What can school boards do? Encourage teachers to post photos from class projects on official school social media accounts rather than personal accounts, provide work phones or Internet-based phone numbers for teachers to use when communicating with students and families and restrict recording technology in schools.
Policy/Program Memorandum 151
Date of Issue: July 28, 2023
Context
The ministry recognizes the importance of professional learning that enhances educators’ knowledge and skills for the effective support of all students and children. For the 2023-24 school year, mandatory Professional Activity (PA) days will focus on the priority areas of:
- Literacy and Mathematics
- Curriculum Implementation
- Student Well-being, School Safety and Violence Prevention
Requirements for school boards
School boards are required to submit a general outline of their PA day activities on or before August 15, 2023 through the Ontario School Year Calendar (OSYC) application. The PA day descriptions will be reviewed by regional offices, which may be in contact with boards where necessary. Following this, boards will receive a written confirmation from the regional office, which will confirm completion of the 2023-24 school year calendar process.
Child-rights Impact Assessment and Voice of the Child Reports
Children’s rights impact assessments (CRIAs) put in place a formal CRIA framework at the cabinet level. An impact assessment dedicated to children’s rights will help predict the impact of any proposed change on the well-being of children.
It is kind of like the Voice of the Child Reports (VOCRs). What are the views of children?
Our laws, our policies and our programs should reflect our children’s best interests and minimize any infringement of their rights and well-being. Children continue to be invisible in decision-making processes concerning their rights. CRIAs provide a compliance tool to ensure adherence with obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends conducting a CRIA for any decision that may have an impact on children’s rights.
Can you imagine Ontario requiring a provincial policy memorandum (PPM) to be submitted for cabinet consideration regarding policy changes in education to be subject to a CRIA?
The minimum required age set by social media platforms in the United States is informed by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which requires social media platforms to collect verifiable parental consent before collecting, storing and sharing data from children under the age of 13.
Death of a choirboy in Toronto
Kenneth Au Yeung was the name of a real young man, a real student at Saint Michael’s Choir School in Toronto in 1998. He is not a number, he is not just a statistic. Kenneth died by suicide after he admitted to writing comments in the school yearbook about one of his teachers. He was interviewed by an off-duty police officer prior to his suicide.
Fast-forward to May 2024. Does not compliance with the cellphone ban allow for or contemplate bringing in the police? Too easy to pick up the phone and do so. Too easy to involve the police in non-criminal behaviour. I am not speaking of what might illegally be on that cellphone.
The most recent, although sadly out of date and reality, the provincial model for a local police/school protocol of 2015 references a protocol review process. When will that take place? It should be noted that the Operational Procedure PR 608, Police/School Protocol from Canada’s largest School board, the TDSB, was last renewed in June 2012.
Are we waiting for more student suicides because administrators chose to involve the police in matters related solely to Codes of Conduct? A student who refuses to take out their cellphone is referred to the police? In reality, the 2015 protocol is badly outdated.
We know that students have a diminished expectation of privacy in an educational context, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393. But to involve the police if, at the very least, the student’s presence does not pose a danger to persons or property at the school? No.
Perhaps the Ministry of Education is considering bringing back the ability of teachers being able to suspend for one day? This is another chaotic route, never mind parents not being notified in writing of the suspension.
One can appreciate the warrantless searches of cellphones may be lawful, (R. v. Fearon, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 621) but let’s keep the idea out of our schools.
What comes next? Earphones? Smartwatches? You can stash phones in pouches, but again, what comes next? Short hair so you cannot listen to music on your pods hidden under your hair? Banish the hoodies, with all respect to Sportcheck?
A study in 2023 from Common Sense Media found that 97 per cent of kids use their phones during school hours and that kids say school cellphone policies vary, often from one classroom to another, and are not always enforced.
For a school cellphone ban to work, educators and experts recommend the school administration must be the one to enforce it and not to leave the task to teachers. The Phone-free School Movement, an advocacy group formed by concerned mothers, says policies that allow students to keep their phones in their backpacks, as many schools do, are ineffective.
This is the sixth instalment of a series. Part one: Cellphones in Ontario schools, the voice of the child: Both on silent. Part two: Cellphones in Ontario schools, the voice of the child, part two. Part three: Cellphones in Ontario schools, the voice of the child, part three. Part four:
Cellphones in Ontario schools: Revenge porn and curriculum. Part five: Cellphones in Ontario schools: Social media dangers.
Marvin Zuker was a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice, where he presided over the small claims, family and criminal courts from 1978 until his retirement in 2016. He is a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, where he has been teaching education law for 42 years. Zuker is the author and co-author of many books and publications, including The Law is Not for Women and The Law Is (Not) for Kids.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at Peter.Carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.